In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at

209-II Date of Decision:- 13.02.2026 Hardeep @ Hardu … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate with Mr. Karan Duggal, Advocate and Mr. Jatin Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant A.G., Haryana.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in case FIR No.138 dated 06.06.2021 registered under Sections 302, 404, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, District Rohtak.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 04 years 08 months and 04 days. He was not named in the FIR, and was nominated upon disclosure statement of co-accused Sunil; the alleged recovery of mobile phone purportedly from him was negated, as during cross-examination of the star witness i.e. complainant (PW-1) expressed her inability to recall key facts regarding the mobile phone’s recovery and handling; learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the testimony of PW-6 – Naresh wherein he stated that when he reached the hotel, said Foji (deceased) was weeping, when he asked about his situation, then the Foji told him that he had illicit relation with two women and on this account, his wife and other relatives had beaten him and gave injuries to him and said Foji asked for more liquor and he also told that he will finish his life today. Thereafter, Hardeep (petitioner) went to wine shop for taking liquor and he (PW-6) left the spot. Later, at about 09:45 pm, he received a call from Hardeep (present petitioner), who told him (PW6) that said Foji had caused injury to himself with liquor bottle on his head. PW-6 is the last seen theory witness. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than 08 years; he was not named in the FIR, except disclosure statement there is nothing on record against the present petitioner. Even, the prosecution version is not supported by PW-6. Trial will take sufficient time to conclude. Thus, he prayed for grant of regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that there are two accused involved in the said commission of offence. Co-accused Sunil named the present petitioner in his disclosure statement. On the basis of his disclosure statement the petitioner Hardeep @ Hardu got recovered his own mobile phone as well as mobile phone of deceased Suresh. In his disclosure statement the petitioner Hardeep @ Hardu disclosed that he has thrown the mobile sim of deceased Suresh with intention to destroy evidence. The specific role of petitioner is that he alongwith co-accused Sunil Kumar caused injuries to deceased Suresh Kumar with liquor bottles. As per post-mortem examination (Annexure R-1 of State reply), 22 injuries were found on body of deceased; doctor’s opinion was obtained as to injuries (Annexure R-4 of State reply) which states that “possibility of death due to heavy blunt impact/force/blow like blow from fist blow from lower limbs cannot be ruled out”. As per FSL report dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure R-5 of State reply) received from Moginand, Panchkula, also supports prosecution case. It is further submitted that out of 26 prosecution witnesses, 12 witnesses have been examined, however, 14 witnessess are yet to be examined and there is apprehension that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage, then he may influence the witnesses and tamper prosecution. Custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel, is taken on record. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the present bail petition.

4. Heard.

5. Allegation against the petitioner is that he actively participated in the commission of offence i.e. murder, and is also alleged to have caused disa